- (1.)THIS Writ Petition is filed, being aggrieved by the order dated 19th March, 1991, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik in Criminal Revision Application No. 148 of 1989, partly allowing the Revision filed by the applicants (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein ). By this order, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge upheld the finding of the lower Court that the applicant Sulochana is not legally wedded wife of Pandharinath, petitioner herein. However, as far as the issue of claim of maintenance of daughter of Sulochana viz. , applicant No. 1 was concerned, he remanded the matter back for inquiry into the alleged paternity of Surekha vis-a-vis Pandharinath and then to decide the application of maintenance of Surekha in accordance with law. The parties were directed to appear in the lower Court on 19th April, 1991. However, this Court (Coram : M. G. Chaudhari, J.) vide its order dated 15th July 1991 granted ad-interim stay in terms of prayer (c) and the matter is hanging fire since then.
(2.)FEW facts which are required to be narrated, are as follows :
It is the case of Respondent No. 2 Sulochana Pandharinath Thube that her marriage with the petitioner-original opponent Pandharinath was solemnized about 10 years back and that it was Gandharv marriage. Initially she was given good treatment by the said Pandharinath for 2-3 years. She also gave birth to one son who, however, died subsequently. In the year 1983, Sulochana gave birth to Surekha (Respondent No. 1 herein ). According to her, Pandharinath is the father of minor girl Surekha. After the marriage, Pandharinath purchased agricultural field owned by Sulochana, her sister and mother for the consideration of Rs. 10,000/ -. However, as per the assurance, Pandharinath did not pay the amount of Rs. 10,000/- to Sulochana, her sister and mother and when demand was made for the payment of the same, Pandharinath beat her and drove her outside the house. Thereafter Sulochana tried to cohabit with Pandharinath. She also filed one Criminal Case against him in respect of non-payment of the said amount. However, subsequently compromise took place and Pandharinath agreed to cohabit with Sulochana. It is alleged that Pandharinath, however, did not cohabit with her and refused to maintain her and the child. Sulochana, therefore, made Maintenance Application No. 66 of 1987 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Niphad, claiming maintenance for herself and her daughter. The learned Magistrate by his judgment and order dated 13th March 1989 came to a finding that Sulochana could not prove that she was legally wedded wife of Pandharinath and, therefore, was not entitled to maintenance from Pandharinath. He did not consider the point of maintenance with respect to applicant No. 1 Surekha, who was 71/2 years of age and no finding was given on the points whether she was entitled to maintenance and what amount should be given to her.

(3.)BEING aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Niphad, the applicants Ms. Surekha and Smt. Sulochana filed Criminal Revision Application No. 148 of 1989 in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik. The said Revision came to be partly allowed and the finding of the lower Court with respect to applicant No. 2 Sulochana that she was not legally wedded wife of Pandharinath, was maintained. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, however, observed that there was no finding of the lower Court about the putative status of Pandharinath vis-a-vis Sulochana and parties should be given fresh chance to lead elaborate evidence on this point. He observed that even though Sulochana is held to be not legally wedded wife of Pandharinath that should not deprive illegitimate child viz. , Surekha from being awarded maintenance by Pandharinath. He observed that perusal of record showed that the parties did not foresee the situation in which Sulochana would be held as not legally wedded wife of Pandharinath and, therefore, the applicant Sulochana did not lead any evidence proving Surekha as illegitimate child of Pandharinath. Observing this, he remanded the matter back to the lower Court for inquiry into the alleged paternity of Surekha vis-a-vis Pandharinath and then to decide the application of maintenance of Surekha according to law. It is against this order, the present writ petition has been filed.